8“In that day,” declares the LORD,
“will I not destroy the wise men of Edom,
men of understanding in the mountains of Esau?
9Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified,
and everyone in Esau’s mountains
will be cut down in the slaughter.
Original Meaning
IN A NEW section marked again by a speech of Yahweh (cf. v. 4), the demeaning defeat of Edom is carried even further. This section ties to the previous passage through content as well as through the use of rhetorical questions, with which verse 8 begins in the Hebrew (cf. v. 5). Another uniting feature is reference to “in that day,” in which the events previously discussed are simultaneous to what follows. The form also serves as an anticipation of a fuller discussion of “the day of the LORD” in verse 15. This day of judgment for Edom in verses 8–9 is precursor of that day of universal judgment.
Yahweh promises that he will not only deprive Edom of tactical geographical advantage (vv. 2–4) and strength derived from either wealth or allies (vv. 5–7), but he will also deny them two other means of national support, the wise and the strong. The “wise men” are important figures in the court and society (Jer. 18:18; cf. Deut. 1:13–15; Prov. 24:3–7; Isa. 29:14), providing sage intellectual insight or good sense (e.g., 2 Sam. 13:3; 1 Kings 5:7) as well as practical skill (e.g., Isa. 3:3; 40:20).
Edom had a particularly strong tie to wisdom. The wise man Job comes from Uz, which, while unidentified, is associated with Edom (Lam. 4:21), and one of his “friends,” Eliphaz, also has links with Edom (Teman; see Obad. 9; cf. Job 1:11). Edomite wisdom is also noted in other passages (Jer. 49:7; Bar. 3:22–23, Teman; cf. Job 15:17–19). All of this—the people and their practical skills—is removed. Edom is here paralleled with “the mountains of Esau”—or better, Mount Esau (cf. Obad. 9, 21), since the noun is singular. This seems to be a wordplay designed by the author, playing off Mount Zion (vv. 17, 21) and Mount Seir, a common designation of Edom/Esau (Gen. 36:8, 9; Deut. 2:5; see the note on Obad. 6), and is a reminder of Edom’s mountainous strongholds in verse 3.
Trained soldiers are called upon to act with valor (e.g., Judg. 11:1; 1 Chron. 5:24), but those of Edom are terrified (Obad. 9), psychologically demoralized by the catastrophe befalling them (Isa. 31:9; cf. Jer. 8:9, where the verb applies to “the wise”). The result of this loss of military resolve is a defenseless citizenry who face massacre (cf. “cut down” in Ex. 12:15, of wrongdoers in Israel; Ruth 4:10, of a family line; Prov. 2:22, of the wicked; Joel 1:16, of food). They are not simply driven away but killed (Job 13:15; 24:14; Ps. 139:19). The ones who do this to them are most likely members of the nations mustered against them (Obad. 1).
Bridging Contexts
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP. Even though leadership in Israel for a good part of its history appears to reside in the hands of the king, there was a well-established, decentralized system of leadership prior to the monarchy that served as a means of “checks and balances.” In addition to the tribal hierarchy moving up through father, clan chief, and tribal ruler (such as the “judges” or war chiefs of the book of Judges), the prophet was chosen by God to bring king and country back into a correct relationship with him, and the priest was to lead and teach. The “wise” also provided insight from their own resources and from previous tradition (2 Sam. 14:1–7; 20:14–20; cf. Jer. 18:18, where these last three occur together).
Good leadership requires all of these elements, and at times several functioned within a single individual (e.g., Solomon, who was a wise king). Military might was also necessary for national development. Loss of any of these elements, or even worse, of several of them simultaneously, posed a threat to a nation’s continued existence.
Edom shares types of leadership with their Israelite neighbors, especially in their kings (Gen. 36:31–39) and their wise ones. The threatened loss of wisdom and might from Edom means that they do not know how to live, nor do they have that means to attain any goals they might have. This threat of a lack of vision and lack of means is common among the prophets (e.g., Isa. 29:14; Jer. 51:57), and the confusion and defeat are among the curses following breaking covenant relationships (Deut. 28:20, 25). These, coupled with the previously mentioned loss of livelihood, leave a nation such as Edom destitute indeed.
Contemporary Significance
LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY AND STRENGTH. Israel and her neighbors would be shocked at today’s threatened loss of leadership insight and strength. We do not seem to expect either one from leaders. The 2000 presidential election in the United States left a leader without great power because he was without a clear mandate from the majority of the people. The need for consensus and the fear of political pitfalls and of alienating even a tiny portion of the small majority often mean that decisions are made based on expediency and special interest rather than on justice and righteousness. Things seem to aim more toward the safe common denominator, which is of much lower value than are criteria based on what is best and right. In this, the church shares a belief with both Israel and its neighbors: There are actions expected of rulers that are either right or wrong. While society at large might question this, Christians cannot do so.
Part of the cause of loss of moral strength is an accompanying loss of integrity. This is a problem not only in the political arena but also in the church. Political leaders are joined by religious leaders in not only engaging in immorality, but also in lying and covering up for what are euphemistically called “indiscretions.” Our moral horizon, even within the church, has become lowered, and we need to ask the question raised in another context, “Whatever became of sin?”1 While the threatened loss of guidance and power would have concerned the ancients, the fact that neither today’s society nor the church seems to be bothered about the loss of both moral vision and the ability to accomplish good in leading society is even more of a concern. We could well be looking back on the realization of an event like Obadiah’s prophecy. Where are today’s leaders who will base decisions on integrity rather than on either pragmatism or politics?